The_Irrepressibles
Well-Known Member
Just a suggestion.
I know this was an attempt to compress a lot of information into a powerful short sharp focus piece to get the message out there and across as succinctly as possible. A social media soundbite if you will. And it certainly achieves that goal.
However, I think with P#1, sometimes there's not enough made of the fact that he was a very young guy with absolutely no experience in football, either playing or coaching, whatsoever that I've ever heard (Can he even kick a ball? I doubt it.) A very strange person to be sanctioned, with full support (and funds?) from CFC to establish a youth feeder team (and coach them). Very strange indeed.
It makes no sporting sense whatsoever. Therefore it would seem the original aim of it's creation had very little to with developing young players, or set up with the kids interests at heart, even if it did go on to have some success. Ironically probably only because of it's inextricable links to the parent club, the denial of which, now being their only defence against the indefensible.
Now whether the incentive was purely a financial one, to ensure money could flow out of CFC's coffers into the trophy centre, via CBC (medals, trophies etc), and ultimately into the pockets of those running the club(s), which for me is a given (no doubt about it in my mind whatsoever), or, as I suspect, for some at least, there were also more sinister reasons for it's inception on top of the obvious monetary ones, this pertinent information about the complete lack of suitablility of the founder (and the first offender from whom everything else originates) is crucial and hard hitting information that everyone should be made aware of, as frequently as possible and not glossed over.
For me this is no side issue or curiousity, but rather it's front and centre of the whole tragedy. It's an Aha! head shaker moment for anyone confronted with it, realising the foundation upon which everything else was built, and the trunk from which all the other branches have grown, was planted in some very suspect soil from the very outset. It hints at premeditation and shady, murky, sinister selfish motives, rather than the organisation just being the unlucky casualty of a series of crimes of opportunity and random unscrupulous employees. It turns potential victim imposters into the perpetrators and colluders, that they most likely are. Whether that's directly in the sexual crimes themselves, or as enablers, either way, in order to keep hidden their own indiscretions. In short, it just doesn't make much sense unless there was something fishy going on from the very start, which continued to be perpetuated during the decades thereafter.
Perhaps others disagree, but I would be hammering home the bizarre conception of CBC and it's unlikely founder at every opportunity. He just happens to be a P with no competence or proficiency for the job at hand? As were so many that were employed since? Nah. It's a key part of the jigsaw. And perhaps just as importantly, it's a real instant eye opener for the reader, from which everything transpiring subsequently, makes a lot more sense and becomes far more plausible (for any who might think it's just too improbable to believe and who could blame them?). Because let's face it. To most, this cover up really is unbelievable in it's scale and levels of depravity and conspiracy of silence. Most of us can't get our heads round it, never mind those newly introduced to the subject. Yet sadly, here we are.
I don't know what the spotlight guys have unearther or uncovered, but I'd certainly like to know a lot more about the connections, both business and personal, between all the founding parties at CFC and CBC around the time of and before it's creation. I think that would make very interesting reading indeed.